What's the point of the long view when the Gulf states will donate tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation to keep the dumpster fire burning? It is simpler to destroy Islam than to reform it. There are words we can utter that will enrage them and yet shatter their certainties, but we dare not utter them because Europeans are still freaked out by the way Muslims freak out. We cede their superiority or absolute equivalence before we even engage in a religious dialog, and yet it's a certainty that Muhammed was a pedophile rapist thief who sold his soul to Satan in return for the conquest over all the Arab peoples, a power Jesus pointedly refused in the wilderness. Start regarding Islam like Islam regards Yazidis and they'll shrink back, because the very idea makes Western culture an antibiotic to their bacterial infection. They would probably kill any Muslim exposed to it and cut all the Internet lines connecting them to the West, because their religion can't actually be questioned in such ways because it's extremely brittle. Unlike Christianity, which thrives on doubt and questions, Islam unravels or explodes. If any part of the Koran is wrong, it can't be the word of Allah and the whole thing is a lie. That's why I say that destroying it is easier than reforming it. Reforming it is extremely difficult because the believers have to do an Olympic level mental gymnastic routine to avoid the obvious conclusions. They also have no counter, because they can't undercut Jesus in ways not written in the Koran because if they do, they're discrediting the Koran, revealing it as a lie, and it explodes in their faces again. We're one or two moves to mate, but afraid to touch our queen because we're playing with a schizophrenic psychopath with a propensity for violent outbursts or self-harm.
Because we maxed out our credit card in a war that effectively created ISIS. We are seeing the full ramifications of the neocon war machine. I honestly don't think there is a feasible way that further ground wars would resolve this without creating more resentment and another power vacuum which another radical group would fill. Liberalization and democratization do not come from the barrel of a gun. They tend to historically come from education, infrastructure development, and investment. We did not seriously engage in any of that post-war; rather, we practiced 21st century imperialism for the most part. We also propped up (and continue to prop up) regimes that are anti-democracy for the sake of regional stability. That has obviously failed, and so we need to stop with that policy and engage in real efforts in improving the average daily life of people in this region. For the most part, these are desperate people without any alternatives who have known war and struggle most of their lives. We should do our best to provide them with better alternatives other than another generation of constant warfare. TL;DR: The answer is not more violence. Violence is the lazy, cowardly answer.
Sorry, but the Republicans aren't responsible for ISIS. Obama did that by trying to score partisan points by leaving a power vacuum in Iraq. He was determined to do the same in Afghanistan but the mess he made in Iraq was so bad that the generals convinced him that letting the entire Middle East get overrun by Islamists would be too obvious a failure.
Despite all the rhetoric against ISIS I firmly believe that no nation in the West wants to eliminate them. Not yet, at least. Someone has a use for them and that's why they've continued to thrive. We took out Saddam easily and with no justification. ISIS would be even easier to defeat in a ground war and would have greater justification but the West aren't interested in challenging them head-on, despite all the chaos and death they've unleashed in the Middle East and beyond. Instead we're pinning our hopes on the Syrian and Iraq military (both are in disarray), on the Kurds and even Iranian militias. There's the argument that attacking ISIS directly will result in greater terrorist attacks in Europe and America and while it has merit, the fact is that ISIS and their affiliates are regularly carrying out attacks on our countries with impunity anyway. So instead of simply accepting these attacks and doing nothing, surely it's better to destroy the source and then clean out the scum we have in Europe and America who follow ISIS? There'll be civilian casualties both ways but at least destroying ISIS will eventually reduce the terror attacks in the West AND in the Middle East.
Nobody in power cares that much about ISIS. Crushing them doesn't present any geopolitical advantages, and presents major difficulties in terms of who you'd have to ally yourself with and against. So for now all we're going to see is some aerial bombing and the use of the name as an excuse to justify attacks on civil liberties.
Something the extremist always seem to miscalculate on: they mistake trying to limit the casualties upon the civilian screens they use as a weakness. It's not. It is just a manifestation of our idea of civilized behavior. And that civilized behavior is a veneer. For the past 3,500 years, when Western society's feel that their very survival is threatened, that veneer is quickly cast aside and replaced with appalling savagery. And in the modern age we own the copyright on the most horrifying and hellish ways to kill lots of people. If you pose enough of a threat to us (Western Civilization) the consequences of that threat can be extreme. Just look to the firestorm bombing of Dresden.
It is remarkable how otherwise intelligent people can be seduced by this kind of absurd nonsense. We, Europe, in fact did undertake a decades long occupation of North Africa and the Middle East. It did not produce the results that you presage. It is the height of arrogance and historical ignorance to imagine that we have and can impose the solutions for these places. And what happens when the inhabitants of these regions reject your plan for a new enlightened society?
Sorry? I'm showing historical ignorance? Please, do tell when we invaded and occupied the area with the intent to improve and educate the region as opposed to, oh I don't know, a big game of dick-waving imperial expansion and power projection instead? Quick question, you went to the shop yesterday and they'd sold out of milk, do you then never go back to the shop on the basis that you expect them to never have milk in the future based on that historical data point, or do you understand there were a number of complex interactions that led to that event, and in the future there is no guarantee of the same outcome? Repetition of events meets reductio ad absurdium. You deal with them via legal means. Something they may find preferable to the random beheadings, rapings and hangings ISIS seem to enjoy doling out. Moreover, the entire region has a history of being occupied. It was only the with the receding of the French and British Empires that independence came into being, and even then the political landscape was heavily influenced by Western and Soviet interests, hence why Beirut is no longer called the Paris of the Middle East, it's far more likely Paris will be termed the Beirut of Europe than it regaining that claim again. That region hasn't seen anything like truly independent states since before the Akkadians, around 4 and half thousand years ago. I'm not buying a mass uprising as we've near enough 4 millennia of data points suggesting otherwise. You'd certainly get some resistance, but my bet is those resisting wouldn't be the average citizen, but more likely the very people currently inflicting misery on the inhabitants of the region, and are the very people we want to contain and crush anyway. And I've no doubt the religious nuts would squeal at increased separation between religion and state, but since such ties are what fucked up a lot of places in the first place, then so long as they keep it to waving placards about, so what? I welcome demonstrations, let them have that freedom. If they want to call for violence, then let them cool off in a cell for a few hours and a do a few hours community work. If they want to commit violence, they can go break rocks in the sun for the next 10 years. You know, along the lines of how we do things on the basis these are fellow humans we're dealing with and not Martians. As for imposing western socially liberal standards, you take your time. After 20 years you've got your well-fed, well-educated, comfortable population starting to come through, who've been exposed to such ideas. The old guard would rail against the changes, and you'd get the occasional nutter like we do in the west, but this is real life, not some utopian ideal and Bad Shit Happens regardless. So you keep on going. You'll never get rid of nutters, but you can reduce the bar of those who will become one and thus reducing the number of them.
Sorry, but that's really fucking stupid. That's always been the stated intent. To imagine that the impulses that fucked things up on previous occasions can somehow be overcome and that western governments are capable of disinterested and entirely benevolent action in the middle-east, or that one can impose liberalism on a people is just...delusional. Average citizens wouldn't resist? Community service for rabble rousers?
The problem I see isn't with the Muslims, it's with the Westerners who would have no stomach or tolerance for what you'd require, and your suggested program would basically be buying moderates breathing room without really addressing the core problem, which is that Muslims who go back to their source documents become bug-eyed jihadist killers because that's what Islam is. Instead I would take advantage of their apeshit insanity and intolerance and just redirect it, ju jitsu fashion, by pointing out that Muhammed sold his soul to the devil, enslaved all the Arab peoples, and that Muslims are enslaved to Satan and doing his work. The enlightened Muslims would go about killing imam's for misleading the flock because that is what Muslims do. The imams would then flee to the West and demand protection from the Christians, and the game would basically be up.
To put it extremely mildly, your data set is corrupted. We in fact did tell the natives all over the world that our occupation was for their own good, that we would build them schools, hospitals and railways, that we would bring them civilisation; many people really believed it too, see The White Man's Burden; and indeed, we actually did many of those things. But it matters not what our stated aims are, what matters is the military occupation and imposition of a new social, religious and political order! That is what the inhabitants will object to. You're not buying a mass uprising? I suppose in your world the Algerian War of Independence never happened, the Iraqis passively accepted the 2003 invasion, etc. As Ayn Rand (now there's someone I don't quote often!) said, “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”. In other words, we can tell ourselves that the Iraqis welcome us as liberators, but we cannot ignore the destruction wrought by bombs planted by Iraqis who disagree. It's all just fantastic nonsense I'm afraid.
Ww2 is a bit different if you ask me. It was a conventional war where the opponents were technologically similar and the development race was important. Hitler was a radical from the first war who did get free and rose up like you could have with a radical Muslim, but Hitler had a army capable of devastating Europe at the time the middle east is not capable of that sort invasion which is why they do what they do and why keeping them from nuclear weapons is important. Nukes could put them into a position of leveling cities like Nazi forces did in ww2. That is not to mention Islam is not as United as Nazi Germany was. If one faction rises they end up fighting their own people to some extent. They are just not a military threat to Europe because if they ever marched on Europe they would lose local security and that would threaten the regime.It is much the same reason why China could not sustain a foreign invasion without suffering massive revolts at home.
All true, but again, the difference between the way we treated Germany after WWII is a big reason why they haven't risen up again. Instead of letting g their economy go to the wolves, the Allies stuck around to make sure the non-Commie half could rebuild and survive and now we get plenty of Bimmers, Benzes and VWs as a result. Japan is the same way, despite being considerably different from Europe culturally and they now have a culture of men who are too scared to have sex with live women, let alone rise up to rape and pillage other countries.
Can we fuck off with the "stated intent" please? We know exactly what all the imperial games were about, so don't drag that out as an argument against as it's such a massive strawman Lord Summerisle plans to stick a virgin in it and set it alight. You've a good point with whether we could retain a benevolent interest though, but then if we're basing current policy on theoretical future actions, we'd never get anything done. We've mechanisms to keep the worst excesses at bay, that's why we have the UN, and with the likes of China and Russia always happy to embarrass the west the Security Council's current deadlock with interests could actually be used to good effect for once. Take a look at Iraq, it was the heavy handed responses to insurgents that non-violent opposition came into focus, and these were corralled by special interest groups and ought to have been a useful tool in engaging and exiting the place. The utter fuck-up that were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are excellent educational tools in what not to do.
Again, as I stated to Rick, basing an opposition of a stated intent as opposed to actual intent is a strawman. The Imperial era had little to do with helping the natives, that some was done was more by-product than intent. It is terribly amusing how "what they said"/"what they did" gets changed about depending on the arguments though. Some will. I disagree that a majority will, historically you always have resistance and managing that is the challenge, but equally you have co-operation where the invaded find common ground with the invaders, and you tend to find most resistance comes primarily from groups you've disbanded. Again there are ways around that, people like gilded cages in real life. Okay, maybe you should read up on the Algerian War, and how the French managed to radicalise the population via La Main Rouge. I can't confess to knowing oodles on the conflict, but I do know it was that French Intelligence section that turned the independence movement from a mostly political movement with a very small core of violence pursuing members, into a national one that triggered a civil war. So no, there was no mass uprising up until the French decided to use terrorist tactics against their political enemies, at which point that gets filed under an Yet Another French Fuckup. And the same with Iraq, again as I pointed out to Rick, mass opposition truly started when the American forces started royally pissing off the locals with their anti-insurgent tactics. Prior to that, the insurgency were a mix of foreign fighters, nationalists, Al Qaeda and angry members of the disbanded Iraq military, and whilst throughout the nation, could not be described as a majority of the population. Much of the insurgency could've been reduced by more intelligent post-war planning. Now, would we learn from those mistakes? I don't know. But I do know a great deal of the ME/NA issues boil down to Europeans carving the place up for self-interest, and as such we've a responsibility towards the region. I'm not advocating rolling across the entire region, but places like Libya and Syria would greatly benefit from moving away from their current situation, and with a force in place keeping the peace and rebuilding the place. Even Iraq, although that would be one hell of a hard sell to the public (what? Again?). The only way we'll ever really kill off radical Islam as by having an open, socially liberal, secular-governed, successful nation in the ME with a well-educated, well-fed and content people. Questions of "why can't we be like that?" will then be asked. In the main, well-off and comfortable people don't take up arms, the poor and desperate do. It's all about reducing the latter. Oh I agree, but for the reasons I already gave, not for the ones you're trotting out.
My point goes further than that. It is easy for you or I who have no skin in the game (at least not directly) to recommend a civilising mission. At the level of statecraft, it doesn't work that way. The institutions centrally involved in conducting a multi-trillion dollar, multi-decade endevour of this scale are oil companies, weapons companies, and other conglomerates. Those have a massive say in how policy is implemented, and they have their own goals which - to put it mildly - diverge from the kind of selfless benevolence that you're suggesting. This is why the "stated intent" point is not a strawman. You can give whatever intent that you like, and these dynamics will still be in play. I'd argue that they're not fundamentally different to those that existed in the past. And that's all completely aside from how it is received on the Arab street, or the more basic question as to whether the west has the right to do such things at all.
They may have a say, but they've not got the guaranteed control you seem to think they have. A fine example is the IFOR/SFOR/EUFOR in Bosnia, which would closely parallel the kind of sectarian issues we see in somewhere like Syria, and makes for an excellent template for when you've got several opposed groups not especially wishing your plans to be implemented. Much smaller scale than what would be required, but nevertheless it indicates it can be done without kowtowing to big business. If the fundamentals are "make money", I won't disagree, but the excesses of the past cannot be as easily gotten away with. We've nothing like the East India Company today, sure we've got some dodgy companies putting money in the right pockets, but media attention has never been so strong. And one of the reasons I stated a socially liberal Western style democracy is that it means they've got their own media, their own political parties (have an independence referendum every 10 years) and their own mechanisms to hold those in charge to account. I suspect a lot in the Arab world would grab the chance of being able to actually wave placards about without fear of the secret police kicking down their door, gleefully highlighting wrongs and hypocrasies free of fear. It's all about putting a big old spotlight on everything, including us, and that's how you beat radicalisation. Chuck it in front of the cameras, and challenge it, and let them challenge us. I suspect people will find arguing much more fun without needing literal bullet points. When you've got a Med full of dead refugees, people being displaced in the millions and Europe itself being disrupted, there's no 'have we the right', there's just sitting down and figuring out what'll be the best action in the long run. And what's best may very well not be what I'm suggesting, but sometimes hand-wringing and lukewarm interventions gets more blood on your hands than just accepting it's time to clean up your messes. Really, something needs doing, and fuck "have we the right", it may help you sleep at night, but your moralising does fuck all else. The real world sometimes means doing what is necessary. And right now Europe and the US need to man up and figure just what that "is" is and bring some much needed stability to the region.
If you think that big business interests don't substantially control the state, then I don't know what to say to you. States are centres of power, and what they do reflects the wishes of their stakeholders according to the degree of power that those stakeholders possess. They don't really have an independent will that can decide to do X and then to do it against the interests of its most powerful constituents. People within the system attempting things like that are swiftly removed. Are you kidding? Media is subservient and centralised as never before. Sure, people don't trust it, but that leads to disorientation rather than a greater understanding. How much of the media treated the obviously fabricated case for war with Iraq with the scorn that it deserved? They present "debate"within carefully controlled parameters - those set by their owners and sponsors. I actually agree with this principle, just not with White Mans Burden. Sustainable solutions must come from within, and to the extent that the west can help, it involves making hard choices - such as challenging the Saudi's on their funding of extremism, a degree of reconciliation with Iran, genuine efforts at peace in Israel/Palestine and an end to the drone assassination campaign. But these steps are not likely because there are higher geopolitical objectives being pursued, and entrenched interests that would be affected. They're politically impossible because anyone moving on them would be put back into line or pushed out - illustrating my earlier point.
Muscovy has no interest in fighting daesh, only propping up Assad, and murdering children in brutal air strikes on rebel held territory. Syria and Ukraine are just test sites for weapons research.
